Military Matters: Episode Three

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Another checkered flag for the books.

Time to celebrate with Jamba.

Jump in at JambaCasino.com.

Let's Jamba.

No purchase necessary, BTW Group.

Boy, we're prohibited by law.

CCNC, 21 plus sponsored by JambaCasino.

MUSIC

Good morning, Charles. You made it.

I did. I made it. Yeah, I'm thank you.

I think we're allowed to say to the viewers

it's been pretty interesting weather down here in the West Country

and you had a pretty wet drive down.

Motorways flooded. Yes, motorways flooded.

It was, it was, it was pretty bad.

On the upside, it gave more time to ruminate

on the subject matter for today.

So let's, let's take the positives.

But yeah, it was, it was very hairy.

It does. I think it relates to what we're going to talk about

because there are instances like this.

There was, I was on the M5.

There was a, there was a serious accident

on the other carriageway and I couldn't tell what had happened.

But, but it does, you know, it, that requires a response.

That requires a response of people who know what they're doing

and who aren't able to deal with it.

And I think this goes to the heart of a lot of what we have already

talked about on military matters,

but probably what we will talk about today.

You know, this, this matching of people to situations and,

and scenarios, although, of course, that was,

that was,

mechanics not quite the right word, but, but, you know, there was,

there was no intent there.

It was an accident caused by presumably bad weather and bad driving.

No one was trying to do it.

I think what we have to walk our way around today and through this series

is what is happening if anything, sort of organically,

and what is being created.

And therefore, what are the responses to it?

Yeah. So that might be a slightly uncomfortable analogy

to make, but, but, you know, we'll give it a go.

No, it was great.

Well, I found my head deep into military matters.

I was, I was looking at doing a bit of research last night,

getting back into the swing of it,

having a re-read apart to the strategic defense review.

And then this morning, I found myself having a look at a,

a little video that Dr. Fiona Hill,

who's one of the three authors of that defense review.

So we've got Lord Roberts and General Barrons

and Dr. Fiona Hill.

And I hadn't thought about it before.

Who is this lady?

So she's Chancellor of Durham University.

She's a Russian and European geopolitical expert.

She's provided advice to three US presidents,

George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump himself.

And I was just listening to her clip.

She was talking about, so three years ago,

she was talking about Russia.

And I just found her statements very scripted

for somebody who was supposed to be a deep analyst.

She was talking in very simplistic soundbites

and one of the ones that I wouldn't start

when she said, well, of course the Russians have been conducting,

were conducting exercises in relation to Ukraine.

And these are sort of offensive exercises.

The implication was, so we knew what was happening.

But when we conduct exercises,

they're always defensive exercises.

And I just thought, is this really the level of the intellect

that was putting together our strategic defense review?

I don't know what you'd say about that.

Well, I think that was a really interesting point.

I'm, again, having looked into her background

and her, particularly her position on Russia

to a certain extent as well,

I think as well as a reduction of the intellectual scrutiny

of Russia in its current form and historically,

there's also a great emotional thread running through

what she says.

And, okay, of course I concede

that to be described as a Russia expert.

If you speak Russian and you've spent time in Russia,

that adds weight to your credentials.

But at the same time, if you decide

through that period of time, if having learned Russian

and spent time in Russia, which she has done,

but actually you have become disenchanted

or you decide that you don't like Russia

and what Russia's doing and you feel

that you're well justified in your position

because you've been there and you know

then that creates, well, or rather,

that reduces your objectivity.

So it's a sort of, it's a double-edged sword

to be described as an expert,

but also then to bring what looks like a motion into it.

And I think that's exactly what's happened

in the strategic defense review in particular.

She's, I mean, I've, I think I've quoted this

on the news program, you know,

on the emotional side of it,

she has directly compared Hitler with,

sorry, Putin with Hitler in the past.

So it's all very much about the individual

and that kind of thing.

And again, exactly like you say,

when she, when you see that she has been set against

at a set alongside Robertson and Barons,

both of whom in effect stand gain

from the actions that are very obviously forecast

by the defense review, Barons,

insofar as his defense consulting company is concerned

and his particular interest in sort of cyber and AI

and then Robertson being involved with the current group.

So that the, the conflicts of interest,

as well as the points that you make

are suggestive to me that these three people

should never have been anyone near the defense review.

And I, you know, I remember we did talk about this

in the, in the last episode of Military Matters.

And I think that stands the test of time.

We recorded that back in late September 2025

and the situation has evolved now,

but I think what's interesting is that it,

to us, because we are keeping our eyes on it,

I think it, you know, we can see absolutely,

or at least we believe we can see the direction

that it's going in.

I think for the general public,

I would regard this as a very clever

psychological shaping operation

and slowly, slowly, incrementally,

people are being moved into a position

where they can see that there would be a justification

for an engagement of sorts with Russia.

And that links exactly back to what you're saying

and Fiona Hill, in particular,

inserting her prejudice and narrative

into that defense review.

Yeah.

And one of the things that we could pull out

the defense review to support that position

is the fact that they're talking about the need

for national engagement.

We, we, they're not going quite as far as saying

we need to get into a full law footing,

but they, the document is clearly saying

that we've got to fully engage industry.

We've got to fully engage the UK public.

We've got to recruit.

So we'll say it's one level down,

but it's not saying, well, we've got to have strong

armed forces that exist from within and alongside

the nation state.

We're now pumping out documentation

suggesting that the whole nation has to get on board

because in the future we might have to,

we might have to fight Russia.

Absolutely.

And again, I think that's, that's,

it's one of the building blocks.

And I think, you know, again, I was sort of considering

to, well, I suppose two sides are the same coin.

If we look at history and we've referred to this before,

but we look at the, um, the build up to

and the progression into the first and second models

and how they work great similarities.

One of the things that, in fact, I'm going to be writing about,

hopefully this week, is how the emergency,

the state of emergency is, first of all,

created and then exploited.

And just as an example, I think I've got the figure right.

I look this up.

I think it, between the years 1939 and 1945,

41 pieces of general legislation, 41 general acts

that came onto the statue book during that period

were predicated on emergency.

So they were, they were basically emergency powers.

Now, how many of these were rescinded or repealed

at the end of the war I haven't yet got into,

but I should think it would be, it would be very few.

And here we are beginning of 2026.

We are yet to see emergency legislation,

but the current armed forces bill,

which is going to be changing the,

at the moment, just the details around the call up

or the ability of the armed forces to call up reservists

and to increase the age at which people may be called up.

And all of the, you know, there are many, many things

pointing very strongly towards a big echo

with what was happening in the wars that I've just described.

The other thing, which I think is an interesting

if somewhat intellectual academic point,

is if there is to be conflict with Russia,

then, and indeed, this is how it's been described in Ukraine,

what does winning look like?

We're always told that, oh, well,

if it weren't for what we did in the Second War,

we'd all be speaking German.

So that's the sort of, well, that's what the result

of losing the Second World War would have been.

What is the result of losing a war with Russia?

No.

And I think it's difficult to point to there

being much of a distinction between winning or losing

in that, if we use what I'm describing,

the sort of the emergency situation,

and we see how Ukraine being an excellent case study,

how what's happened there is a massive push towards

a digital infrastructure because there's an emergency,

the utter destruction of democracy,

okay, arguable that it was a poor relation

to any sort of democracy that we might describe,

although that's another minefield.

But the point is that you've got all these elements

pointing very strongly towards, actually,

does it make any difference whether you supposedly win

or you supposedly lose the outcome

because of the combined interests of governments

and corporations are all really pushing us

in the same direction.

And then I think on the other side of it,

you've got the armed forces, you know,

the view from the armed forces in the United Kingdom

at the minute, I think is that the situation is so poor

that a war is needed in order to improve the situation

in order to make the armed forces

do what they're supposed to be able to do.

So there are so many reasons, sorry, and then the other one,

the other big one, obviously enormously,

is that the defense industry absolutely requires it.

There's been this enormous commitment

in terms of the defense spend.

Well, that's got to be justified.

So there are so many reasons that suggest

that we sort of, we should have a war,

but as I say, the question is,

well, what would happen?

What would the result be?

Lots of points there.

Yeah.

But there is a lot for discussion over this.

Just coming in a slightly different direction.

I rereading the strategic defense review.

I found myself one coming back on the use of language

throughout, so you read the strategic defense review

and to my mind, it's full of phrases and jargon.

And statements about what is going to be done,

but there's no clarity in what that actually means.

It's lots of buzzwords.

It's lots of okay terminology.

We're going to be fighting fit to win.

So these little sound bites that, of course,

the politicians can stand up in front of the camera

and talk about, but if you actually say,

what does this mean?

And I can't get a meaning out of it.

What I deduce from the document coming back in at it

is huge confusion because we live in a country

where the whole of our ability to produce

and particularly produce and sustain military operations

has all been hollowed out.

And I deliberately used that terminology

because that's appeared quite a lot in the national press

that our military has been hollowed out.

So we look at the country and the whole of the support bases

has been stripped out.

We can't manufacture steel.

We can't until recently we were not producing munitions

and ammunition in any quantity.

We're producing ships, but we don't produce aircraft.

And then we've ended up with the smallest army

in 300 years, I think it is, at around 70, 72,000.

So while politics has been going on

with the same politicians, Lord Robertson's been there

in the background, and he's now part of the age of 79

he's now in this strategic defense review,

but the country's ability to produce

and particularly produce in house has been completely hollowed out.

And then we have a strategic defense review

that says, oh my goodness, we're in a real dangerous position here

because those nasty Russians are going to invade

and we've got to invest in the country in our own production.

But if you take procurement, although the government is talking

about something like 87% procurement from within UK,

that doesn't mean what the government is buying

in a military sense is a UK product

because they're not tracking through the supply lines

as to where the manufactured product actually comes from.

So if they're choosing a missile system,

and they're going to say, well, it's produced in house,

or it's produced by British aerospace,

the reality is that missile doesn't get produced

unless components come in from overseas.

That might be America or that might be Europe.

So the government is now caught in its own trap.

It's hollowed the country's ability

to produce weapons, missile systems.

It shut down the Royal Ordnance factories

that were producing armour.

And now it's suddenly saying, oh well,

if it's going to work properly, we've got to be in house.

So that's one conundrum.

And then of course, we've got another major one

because in the document, it is largely saying,

well, we're not going to fight on our own.

We're going to fight within NATO, but oh dear,

we've now got a bit of a problem with NATO

because Trump has shown that he could,

if he wanted to pull America out of NATO,

and where would that leave us?

Because we're no longer strong enough on our own.

And then the other thing in the background

that doesn't really get dealt within the Strategic Defence Review itself

is the engagement with Europe,

because much as we've said Brexit has brought us out

from the European Union, the reality is,

everywhere you look, we're locked into agreements

with the European Union with respect to defence.

And the situation is now so complex

that the government's making this statement

as to what it wants to achieve the position

that you're suggesting we're on a semi-war footing with Russia,

but actually it can't implement it

because all of the other policies

have destroyed our ability to operate alone.

So I see this document as being not only a huge,

sorry, the Strategic Defence Review,

as not only being a huge psychological operation

on the British public,

but it is also drowning in its own confusion

because it now exists in a political,

let's say European geopolitical world for Dr Fiona Hill,

that prevents us as a nation's state

from performing in a military sense.

A little bit long winder,

but I don't know whether you know where I'm coming from.

Yeah, I do.

Yeah, absolutely.

Well, I think that ties in with this question of,

sorry, what would look like

and whether there is some sort of metric

that determines whether or not we're winning or losing,

which is why we sort of ask question,

are we, well, and I think we agree

that we are in many ways at war.

But what is we,

because in actual fact, exactly like you say,

the control and the profit

is very obviously held

by multinational corporations

and therefore there is,

I would say, a marked difference

from certain any large scale conflict

that we've had within what might be described

as living memory in that the advance

of the technical digital side of things

means that you no longer buy a piece of hardware

and in doing so,

take complete control and ownership of it.

You might physically have the thing,

whether it be a weapon system

or an armored platform or whatever it is.

But in actual fact,

the proprietary technology

that makes that thing work

is owned and can be controlled

from somewhere else.

Now, that's a very, very dangerous position to be in.

If you were just looking through a military lens,

but I think we can't really look just through a military lens.

And this is where we're having to re-evaluate

the idea of warfare

and exactly what it might involve.

Now, I think,

and I think we talked about this last time,

you know, the idea of boots on the ground

and what will always be a factor.

I think that has to happen

because it's impossible to run the PR campaign without it.

You can't not have the photographs of troop ships

or people getting on aircraft.

Whatever it is,

you've got to have that bit to sell to the public,

the idea that there is a national emergency threat to our security

but that we are providing a sort of plucky response.

But in actual fact,

that obscures,

first of all, the fact that an awful lot of the activity

is being conducted behind the scenes

because it's either the preserve

of the intelligence agencies

or it's being given over to people

who are running things remotely.

We've talked about the two obvious ones

being sort of cyber AI or Fairf,

one of the better word,

and indeed drone operation.

So yes, I think the way in which we look at all of it

has to be completely different.

I think also the other thing that's come out

from very obviously directly

from the Strategic Defense Review

is exactly what you say,

particularly from Fiona Hill,

is the idea that Russia

is with beyond question bad

and intends us harm

and is a threat

and all this sort of thing.

Obviously every single protestation

and communication from Russia

indicates not exactly the opposite

but I mean there's sort of,

you know, well,

fine, talk it up if you want

but we have absolutely no intent

of presenting any kind of threat to your country

and that kind of thing.

But also the accusation

and this came out just before Christmas

a very interesting sort of twin attack

from Blaze Machel Welley,

the new head of secret intelligence service

and of course the granddaughter

of Constantin Dobrovolsky,

the Nazi collaborator.

So her family history is interesting to say the least

for somebody who's heading up

our secret intelligence service

and Richard Knight and the head of the armed forces

that Chief of Defense stuff.

Forget it, it was either on the same day or day apart

and the messages were exactly the same

which is that, you know,

we've looked at everything now

and Russia is absolutely presenting

an existential threat to us

and I think that is completely

an extension of the defense review

and it's pointing in a direction

that I think is much more subtle

than the idea of right

where we just need cues of people at recruiting offices

I think there are many more ways

in which this is going to work

as I say going back to your point

about equipment,

the commitment on that spend

is going to deliver something that is ultimately owned

by corporations.

This is going to be more than ever before I think

a war that's conducted by people

in offices

and the other side to that

is just an irony but I thought I'd mention it

is that last year, you know, at the end of 2025

we had the Ministry of Defense bragging

that 2025 is a record year for

what's being described as defense exports

from this country.

So we can't, we can make kit

and frog its to goodness knows

where because when I asked

where it's all gone,

they said it's too sensitive to tell you

even though they're going to say

we've done it.

And at that same time

we don't have the kits that we apparently need.

So to say there's, you know,

a huge element of just

mud to the whole thing as well.

Yeah. And is it just muddle

an incompetence or is it created muddle?

And I think to a large extent

the hollowing out has been deliberate

by these agencies

who've got plans

through rocking the pond above national government.

So there's definitely muddle.

And there's definitely

the strong intent to create fear in the nation state

because if we say

we would Russia actually need

to invade the whole of western europe

we would be back

talking about armies

of millions of men,

millions, not

not 200,400,000.

We'd be talking about millions of men.

And the conflict in Ukraine

has already demonstrated

to my mind at least.

I'm not an army man.

I'm an avian man.

I've clearly demonstrated

that the age of the rapid advance

with armored vehicles

is over because if you look

at what's happened in Ukraine

the moment armored vehicles

are effectively

in the open. And even when they're

not in the open

they are being destroyed by

drones, kamikaze drones.

So large scale

full frontal armored assaults

seem to me to be out.

And the Russians

are clearly winning in Ukraine

but they're doing it

by very small incremental

troop movements.

And this then

further demonstrates that the

opportunity to invade

hundreds of miles west

into western europe

is simply not credible.

I mean, Putin is saying

to the world anyway.

We have no intention

of attacking all countries

or invading

the European Union.

But in reality, the evidence

is all there that you simply

can't do this.

And they would need to do that

in order to have the troops

on the ground to control western europe.

So the fear factor,

which is coming out of the intelligence services

and the likes of Dr.

Fiona Hill

is just astonishing.

It's astonishing.

It is.

I absolutely agree.

And I think that's really

why I mentioned the

corporate element because

it seems

if you look at it through that lens,

then

the idea that Russia

is an enemy

makes sense because

let's say we have

an amazing array of

I suppose

we don't, but you know what I mean?

We have an incredible array

of equipment

and

capabilities that are made

by all sorts of corporations

all over the world.

We do not have a line

insofar as ethics are concerned

as to where we get

kid from really.

The government will talk about

North Korea

or Iran or whatever,

but really actually what they mean is

Russia and to a certain extent

China, I would say.

And so

the

fact that Russia is able

to run

again, what's described

I would say erroneously

or euphemistically as a

defense industry.

Okay, it's a war industry.

It's purely designed to

kill people.

But

the idea that the United Kingdom

is procuring

equipment

solely for the benefit

of the national security

or sovereignty of the United Kingdom

is a farce.

Well, we've just had

last month

the announcement of a missile system

to be created with the Ukrainians.

Is that going to be

the British Ministry of Defense

involved in that project?

It suggests not.

It's going to be

talers or British aerospace

or that club of the military

industrial complex that's going to be working

on that missile system.

Exactly so.

But to your point about

how, for example,

how ground is taken or how

armored vehicles in particular

are, I don't know,

this sounds

cynical but I think realistic

if those vehicles

are not destroyed

in the way that

they may be no

or if they are not destroying

something significant

in return.

Then the wheels,

the corporate wheels don't turn

in the way that they're supposed to.

I think that's the way we have to

look at a lot of

projectiles,

ballistics,

or what not are being made

in order to be able to be

fired elsewhere.

But otherwise, you have to take the view.

Exactly like the planned

obsolescence with light bulbs.

Military hardware is being made

to be destroyed.

Otherwise, those companies

cannot continue to make it.

If we made tanks

we spoke in our last

episode, we spoke

a little bit around this because

we just had that

NATO summit where we were

hanging on about 5%

and they were hammering out

5% and there's that in the other.

Of course, that was absolute smoke and mirrors

because they were not at all up front

about how they were going to achieve

5% and in fact, when you look at the way the pipe was sliced

there was an awful lot of

chicaneery going on there.

But nonetheless, the point is that that is totally arbitrary. And I made this point last time. You know, what the heck does that actually deliver?

We spent 10%.

We spent 10% now on so-called defense.

We had every little bit of shiny

kit that we needed.

What does that mean?

That then Russia ceases to be a threat

or that Ukraine is somehow sort of, you know, saved?

I mean, there's no one can articulate what that means.

But then, you know, all you have to do is just look over the side of the fence.

You're like, oh, right, you're okay.

Now, the defense corporations all over the world have made their billions.

They now need to keep that.

Keep that happening.

And then, and this is why this is sort of, you know, hand in glove thing.

With governments being able to seize upon this opportunity

in order to be able to further subjugate populations via

legislation and sweeping policy changes.

And I mean, you know, if this sounds...

If this sounds fanciful, then I mean, all you need to do

is go to legislation.gov.uk

and look at what changed during, in particular,

the first and second world wars.

You know, I'm not making this stuff up.

It's exactly what happens.

And, you know, in the same way that we all say, you know,

you can't comply your way out of authoritarianism.

It's none of this stuff ever gets scaled back down.

So, this is why I do go to the point of sort of they're needing to be a war.

And the only obstacle really is the public's response to this.

And again, this is something that the media are very, very well practiced in.

Being able to create the conditions under which people think, okay, yeah.

Now I'm on site. Now I can see why I would go and join Apple, whatever it is.

That's a really interesting point to get to, because another of my observations on the

Strategic Defence Review was about recruiting, because there's one small paragraph in there,

which it doesn't say this, but it's implementing this,

intimating this, is the sense is there that unless we can recruit people,

because everything depends on having the personnel to operate the systems,

to sail the ships to fly the aircraft, unless we get the person that people in,

we got a problem.

Now, I did a quick check to see what had happened with recruiting figures

from sort of autumn last year, and we're still in a slowed decline.

And this is where I think these people have got themselves in a trap again,

because in Russia, something which I think has surprised the likes of Dr. Hill and her colleagues.

And I'm focusing in on her, because half an hour ago I was listening to her speak about Russia,

and the fact that is that not only is President Putin still extremely popular,

even though we've now got war into the third year, 30th or 40th year.

40th year.

Exactly.

He is recruiting in order to fight that war with significant casualties,

nobody's saying the Russians aren't taking significant casualties, because they absolutely are.

But within Russia, across the whole span of Russia, with all the different people types,

that Russia comprises, there is still the willingness to fight for the motherland.

In contrast, in UK, recruiting is demonstrating that people don't feel motivated to fight for UK for the motherland,

because they are now completely unmotivated by what their own country has to offer.

They don't believe in the monarchy, they don't believe in the government, they certainly don't believe in politicians.

They're not even convinced happily yet that we need to go to war with anybody.

So you read the Strategic Defence Review with all of its rhetoric about

and focus on Russia, and we're going to do this with equipment,

and we're going to have this resurgence in building equipment in house, et cetera, et cetera.

But oh, we haven't got the people.

And we haven't got the people in a huge way, because as the military gets smaller,

so the experience base withers away.

And therefore you have not got the quality to teach people out the art of warfare.

And I'll just add to that that something else that I picked up in the Strategic Defence Review

was the fact that it was saying, well, as far as education is concerned and teaching,

and they're talking about education and teaching recruits within the military, that's going to be outsourced.

So another key thing, because in my time in the Navy, when you looked at young recruits coming into the Navy,

you could see the huge change that the Navy made in taking them from being a schoolboy,

to bringing them through basic training, a lot of them needed education

in that their mathematics skills weren't very good, or they're writing, reading and writing even.

And it was the military instructors that worked with them to bring those skills up.

And what that was actually doing was giving those young recruits a sense of values,

not only in themselves, but in the military, because they were interfacing with military people.

Now we're going to outsource all that to Capita or whoever it's going to be.

And so what you're doing is even the serving people are not rank and file serving people are not

getting any sense of national identity or pride in the armed forces,

all the things that mean that they want to serve, and they stay in the armed forces.

And of course, I always found it bizarre when the military started talking about people having a sort of gap here,

you would serve for so long in the military, and then you go and work for boots, and then you would come back in.

And I remember thinking this was utterly bizarre when it was floated around the military.

Now that report is saying, well, no, this is what we're going to do.

We want to encourage people to be gap year military people.

And I'm thinking no, no, no, because it's the fact that people are in a career for life.

They want to serve, they want to, this is what makes excellent professionals.

And compiling that document to my mind, don't even understand what you need to make a military work.

No, I mean, I would quite agree.

If you sort of take it at face value, but I think we, you know, we go back to a question I was sort of examining at the start,

which is, which is, well, I'm supposed to partly, do we need the papers?

Well, yes, that's part of it.

But for this sort of, what does, what does winning all losing actually look like?

And do we, are we supposed to be winning or are we supposed to be losing?

Because if we, I think if we, we look at the end state, you know, as one should in military planning, you know,

what is the end state, what is the desired end state?

And therefore one step before that, what is your center of gravity?

What do you, what's the one mission critical activity you need to achieve in order to fulfill that end state?

And I have a hard time picking between sort of winning or losing.

Because the point is to be able to create the conditions under which people are going to accept a change to their circumstances.

And the introduction of, I mean, I know I keep saying it, but.

Right. So we're going to fight the war.

We're not actually going to fight the war without our.

I think there are different sizes.

So I think there's a really interesting point you make about the people.

Because again, we talked about this before.

Quite right. There are, I think amongst the, those of sort of eligible age.

I mean, in particular, say that people are coming into it, you know, 16 to 18 year olds.

Now, by and large, you know, not interested for a variety of reasons.

I think not interested probably because the, just the idea of doing something.

Which requires a certain degree of discomfort and sort of physical endurance.

Yeah, exactly. I mean, all of that.

So on the one hand, that might sound a bit damning and a bit unkind to say, but I think it is true.

And I think we can point back to a lot of reasons why that would be.

And then I think on the other side is the, what, going, going, you know, get, get slaughtered for a Keir Starmer.

No, thanks.

And that again, I think is a very interesting one.

Because when we look at what's happening now with reform UK.

And again, talked about in the last episode, but the sort of creation and then riding a wave of.

Nationalistic further, whatever you want to call it.

And for us now, off to Davos to sort of wave his flag and say, you know, right up yours, I'm going to stick up for Britain and whatnot.

In actual fact, I think were there a change.

And this is this, this might have a few people sort of bulking slightly.

But, but, you know, there are great parallels here with what was happening in 1930s Germany.

The rise of Hitler in the early stages was based on brilliant oratory and a very clever selection of a way of unifying the country, both economically and philosophically.

And, and this is what Farage is doing, but you have to have your baddy and internally whilst for Hitler, it was Jews, not as far as I believe.

And I'm setting quite a lot of store in the writings of David Irving.

But, and then this is from, from Diaries, not just a bit of those surrounding him.

It wasn't that he was has sort of pathological disposition against people of Jewish faith.

But, but rather more that he realized the political expediency in identifying a group of people that could be pointed to as the problem in the same way that reform and Farage have done with the in particular Muslim population of the United Kingdom.

So, the reason I'm talking about this is because I think that does potentially open two doors.

One is the, the idea that sort of migration and what not needs to be tackled and digital identity, hey presto is the answer for that.

But, also, because of the, the idea that right, well, we are, we are all Brits and those dastardly Russians are going to do something.

So, you know, are going to join up and you would fight for, say, Farage.

So, I think you're absolutely right. You do need people, but probably not that many.

And I go back to this idea of corporate and exactly what you're talking about with the, the idea that packages of training or whatever can be delivered from outside the armed forces, which to you and I sent utterly insane.

But then actually if you're thinking of where that goes and the idea that the control really is held outside of the armed forces for all the reasons that we've referred to before.

I think it sort of starts to make more sense.

Yeah.

Yesterday I had, I had a chat with Mike Robinson and, and I think I said to him, so what do you think's happening?

And there were, there were some things discussed, but part of that discussion was an emergence of fascism.

We were talking about UK and the West and that, that was Mike's feeling on what we're saying.

And you're intimating the, the same thing here that we are, the main danger is actually coming from within the country and the attack on our constitution and our laws and our freedoms and our protections.

But while you were talking about the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany into my head,

it came a chat that Mike and I had many, many years ago, I think in, in, in Bournemouth with a very elderly German lady who'd married an English soldier at the end of the Second World War and then come to live in UK.

And of course at that, because I'm talking at least 10, maybe 12 years ago, it was the EU which was seen as the big evil beast eating away at our constitution.

And there, constitution and freedoms.

This elderly lady was very agitated and she said to us over a cup of tea, all this is happening.

The freedoms are going, the state is taking control and people can't see it.

Why can't they see it? Why can't they see it?

In the next minute, when she was talking about what she witnessed as the change of politics in Germany, she said,

ah, but the thing about it was, it emerged like the drip, drip, drip of an anesthetic.

And then she, she said, and, and one of the things I remembered and I always hated was that more and more officials were given the right to enter your home.

And more and more people doing ordinary jobs were put in a uniform.

And I'm recounting that now after all these years, but it was immensely powerful because there was that elderly lady.

She was later, I think she was bombed out into German cities.

Hamburg was one, I can't remember where the other one was, she was in Berlin or not.

But it, very poignant stories, but I thought my goodness, you know, so you think about the change always being a start change that you could see.

But she described the evolution of the Nazi project as a drip, drip, drip of an anesthetic.

Yeah.

That's what we are seeing on. We are sensing this through some of these documents.

I think absolutely. And I think, I think what sets this in some perspective is the, in some ways, what was a, you might say is a dress rehearsal, but, but actually was conducted in such a way as to alert people, perhaps beyond a level that they should have been alerted.

And that was the COVID emergency.

And I think there are, there are great parallels, which we absolutely shouldn't ignore anyone who's done any research into it will know that so many things coincidentally were in place by the time the balloon went up in March 2020.

And that suggests that there was a significant amount of planning into something that was subsequently characterized as being a novel illness and novel emergency. And there is every indication that that was not the case.

And also, if you look at it, who, you know, who benefited from that who continues to benefit very obviously, of course, the pharmaceutical industry, but also the digital industry as well, the, the way in which the push to having everything online and indeed digital signature and biometrics and all of that sort of stuff said that so the delivery of profit and control and success into those corporations has been absolutely a measurable as has government control.

Exactly what you will describe in you think of during that period, everyone was suddenly in high vise wondering in marshalling this that in the other.

And by large people accepted it, but of course, as I say that that it was so stark and it was so draconian.

That I think that's done two things. First of all, it did have the I suppose probably calculated effect at least calculators into far as it was probably wasn't going to trigger that many people, but a significant number of people became aware of this reacted against it.

And now are live to what is going on in the world, but I think actually what it did was it push the boundaries so far.

And Mike was talking about this the other day on a news program, the sort of shut the door in the face approach, which is that you you want to achieve one thing, which is sort of right of arc.

So you you make a statement about something that is way beyond what it is that you need to achieve in order that people react against that.

And you then appear to row back from there and say, right, well, they are so it sort of looks like companies.

And I think that is in a way what the covert project is going to deliver in terms of war, because this is a drip drip, it's not right you've all got to stay at home, you know, right, we're all at war.

And I so I think I think there is absolutely a drip drip element to that. I think also the other thing, you know, thinking about that exchange with that with that German lady is how we always talking about we should, you know, we've got to learn from history never again, this and the other.

Okay, fine, but what what what one forgets is that a large part of the reason that history is forgotten lessons aren't learned is because it's a different group of people who are in the chair at that particular time.

So if you if you were able to go back and say to the people who who did survive for the first world war, right, let's go and do this again.

I can't see that any of them would say yes, we'll do it again, but by the time you've pushed on a generation.

And in fact, that is what we've done now, people have forgotten and I think this is the other the other part of it is people have lost touch with the human cost and the impact on humanity and just just a war you mean yes, exactly.

And so it's it's glamourized the internet does that you see you see Twitter is absolutely a wash with either the idea for the Ukraine armed forces supposedly sort of you know, yeah, we blew up so and so.

Yeah, but so you're talking about killing people if that was in any other context, you're putting live videos of people being killed that would not be pointed but because it's it's sort of it's glorious war it's somehow fine.

Well, I think I did mention this in our previous talk, but the other thing I'm old enough to remember will be as a youngster was the fighting in Vietnam being reported on the BBC.

And regularly those reports were body bags they were talking about a dead Americans coming back in body bags and it was clear that the reports of those deaths 200 300 whatever it was in any particular period were having a huge impact on UK society and they were certainly having a huge impact on American society.

Because when the body bags got numerous enough and the flow was strong enough there was the backlash in the American public against against the war itself.

But the war in Ukraine utterly brutal brutal fighting in a conventional sense in the beginning but now within a matter of a few years into drone operators hunting individual soldiers.

And some of the footage is truly horrific none of this appears on the BBC so the BBC reports the war in Ukraine with as you say all the glamour of war if that's possible with no absolutely no footage of the reality and that's why for UK column news and I've tried not to overdo it.

I have from time to time put up clips to show how brutal the fighting is in is in you Ukraine but you are right the West will trace the war as a glamorous war in Ukraine.

It does and this is this is truly sickening and and I think with the like you described the drip drip approach and the many other societal factors that have played upon or interfered with people's minds in so far as people have become decent.

From it there at the number of people who've been around death and I don't like to talk about this much but the number of people who've experienced it up close is very small now very very small which means that people have largely experienced it through computer games or these online videos.

So either it's just virtual or it's being done in the name of something that you're told you should believe in.

And even in fact going to BBC I mean amazingly they are I think it's an audio series they're actually running a series at the moment called Putin's foreign fighters and that the premise as far as I've heard the sort of teaser clip it's to examine these supposedly sort of complete nutcases who want to go and who are not Russian want to go and fight for Putin knowing that they face certain death.

But the BBC is not reporting those same exactly people fighting for the Ukraine well or at least if ever it has done it's taken the Liz trust line which is yeah this is the right this is the right thing to do absolutely you should go for it and I think you know that this is a it is a really serious point because we are talking you know I I think Mike and I would talk about this in a germ warfare banter session the other day but the idea.

That well I mean you just sort of word blazing it the defense industry you work with the defense industry you are making kit that is specifically designed in most cases to kill other people that's that's what you're doing you're you're there to reduce the number of lives on the planet I mean that that's how it works and and yet the sort of personal accounts of this because as I say there are so few serving or former.

Military now full stop but also very few who will have a counting it will have taken part in kinetic operations that have results in the loss of life and I just mean that in terms of the overall population people are basically lost touch with it and I think you know I mean I find this I brought back into stark reality very recently I've read an account first hand account from the trenches in the first war.

An amazing book called Tommy ad gom core geo double M E C U R T Thomas Higgins who was a private soldier then lance corporal in the North Staff to regiment at the early stages of the first world war.

And it describes his experiences in the trenches and then subsequently as a prisoner of war and I defy anybody to read that book and think yes we should go to war.

Yeah and that that should be in Keir Starmer's entry and I'm not suggesting that he holds all the power he is being pushed into this by the the the known and unknown entities to which we refer yet he does have the authority to to go or no go where reaction is concerned but but I think the reason I mentioned that book.

Is that specifically what what's so interesting we have this we have the sort of rose tainted idea that you know that the pals battalions and this and the other that there was an organic response to a situation where we had to meet you know we had to meet that threat we had to send men out in this and the other.

But actually what comes out of that book some of the more poignant parts are he he recounts singing the national anthem on Christmas day where sort of hostilities ceased for the day.

They sang the national anthem and it just caused him to ruminate kept these are from diaries kept at the time of sort of well really is that why we're here we're here to keep some some bloke sitting in a nice house back in the United Kingdom safe you know to read that that's that's quite pretty emotional thing to read off the absolute horrors that he's been through and also he talks about the utter loss of humanity in some of the urban.

Scirmishes that they had where he describes and it was it was the same both sides what else could they do but they just it was just a slaughter it was a frenzy they were just killing people.

As quickly as they possibly could there was no regard for trying to take prisoners or anything like that because they knew that that if they faltered for a minute it was them next.

And that is just horrific to read and then the third point which again is it comes right back to I think sort of what we're talking about in terms of this being in prospect initially and then in review.

Is the idea that they went out they did it some of them like he survived and they came back and they were just straight back down to the bottom of the heap and.

For what and crikey that is poignant and I would say I mean if anyone considers getting a hold of a copy of that Thomas Higgins.

It interestingly his great grandson was one of my instructors when I was at Santa's so which is how I came by copy of it so I'll get he gets gave me a copy of the other day but it I mean there will be other accounts but it is absolutely remarkable and it just it brings those things so even if you think even if you're prepared to endure the idea that humans can kill each other and all the rest of it.

The fact that he was able to point to this idea that you go there and you either do sacrifice your life or you come back and you just get nothing and nothing changes you know that that that hits very hard.

Yeah these sorts of well diaries and recollections of people who've actually been through the fighting of very powerful things.

YouTube for all its faults has got a very large number of really excellent audio I'll say videos usually there's there's images presented with the audio but they are audio audio delivery of the diaries written by German soldiers on the some offices but maybe soldiers on the Eastern front when they were fighting the Russians.

And my goodness those diaries tell you so much because for many they go from the initial euphoria that they're moving across the border and Operation Barbarossa has begun and they're attacking the Russians and they're advancing hundreds of kilometers a day and then it moves on to when things started to bog down around Moscow and starting ground happens and then and then they are on the road.

Retreat and they're in appalling temperatures minus 30 or whatever it is they've no food.

And they are starting to consider why they're there the only reason they continue to fight is to protect their fellow soldiers but in those diaries yes they absolutely reflect back on why they're there and what's happening these are not diaries that the BBC is ever going to present to the nation.

And I doubt if they're even presented to the nation in Germany because they really tell it as it is.

We're on a very interesting path here as I was driving into the column this morning one of the things that was in my head is that although I have been retired now for 30 plus years from from the military I'm thinking to myself it's amazing how powerful the sense of loyalty is.

And so I thought we're going to have this discussion today and I didn't quite know where it was going to go.

But I was thinking we are absolutely challenging stuff that's happening around the military were also in a way looking at the military in UK and saying you really need to think through what you're doing and why.

But I also feel a sense that there are many very good young men and women who are out there in UK's armed forces because they believe they are doing a good job that they're a vital part.

This is a difficult one but what do you think we should be saying to them because on one hand we're here and we're clearly putting a message across wars and nasty thing you have more experience of it.

The nice certainly do.

But so we're saying watch out for what this really is and who's fermenting the environment that says you need to go prepare to go to war for the Russians.

Yes.

What else can we say to those very professional and dedicated people out there?

It's a very good question.

And I think perhaps at the outset of this discussion we should have made reference to that.

The fact is we are both ex-servicement and we both intentionally join the armed forces and serve for periods of time.

So we obviously wanted to do that and there are so many elements of military life.

And okay, I am out of touch and I think to go back to your point about the hollowing item or not.

I know that morale is not what it was when you or I was serving.

I mean there's always something to complain about.

Yes.

It wouldn't be what it is if there wasn't that might be indeed.

That might be hard for not the military people to understand.

Exactly.

If there isn't a certain amount of manking that you used to be called in the 90s, life is not okay.

Yes, exactly.

But notwithstanding that.

But yes, I mean the sense and this might sound sort of tried from like a sales pitch.

It's absolutely not.

It is completely an objective fact that the camaraderie and the professionalism and the ability to get stuff done

exists in the armed forces in an unparalleled sense.

I mean, I do not believe you can replicate or experience that anywhere else.

And for me, that was the main driver for not just joining but being part of that system.

Now, the problem is that you are therefore manipulated as an individual.

Your good nature is taken and maybe co-opted in any particular direction.

But that is a political direction.

I think what I would hope that people do is discuss much more about the factors that are pointing towards a particular military intervention.

And really consider what it is that either is driving this or that the results of it would be.

It is to therefore exercise your discretion and your influence over that process.

Because let's not forget the chain of command works both ways.

And I think there needs to be a greater element of discussion that feeds up to the, let's face it, the political now very much political hierarchy of the armed forces.

That's a really good point, Charles.

What immediately comes into my mind is, I've said this on a number of occasions.

I'm happy to say again now is the immense weakness of the senior officers in the military.

And this was one of the things that I started to see towards the end of my career, which made me ultimately make the decision to leave.

I saw things happening in the military, which were clearly not right.

They did not make sense. They were causing problems.

And yet there was, there was no senior officer that would speak out.

Yes.

Because their minds were full of, am I going to be made a sir?

That was the key one. Am I going to get that most high ranking pension to make the rest of my life comfortable?

And when I started to see what I thought were really, really good senior officers, the sort of people who you just knew if the chips were down, you would actually be following them in the battle.

And then suddenly some scruffy politician appeared on board the ship or on the base.

And they just turned to mush.

And I found this appalling. And of course, there are so many, I mean, if we take barons who's been part of the strategic defense review, you can grab me here because I may have missed it.

But what is he actually, what did he actually do to stop the hollowing out to the military?

Because he's reached senior rank in a military that was being hollowed out.

So what did he do to actually stand up against that or protest or whatever?

No, senior officers, some of them have spoken out a little bit. But most of them, in my view, are complete political cowards.

They will not talk about things.

Absolutely. I would agree with that. And I think that's very well evidenced by the number of officers above.

There's sort of one star command and a bar of who go public the moment they've left, rather than actually making a fuss whilst they're still in and being able to deliver some sort of, some sort of protest.

Yes, exactly. Yes.

And so yes, I mean, to go back to the point, again, sorry, just to refer back to the book at Tommy O'Connor, the other point he makes, of course, and this strikes right to the heart of his.

And it's terribly difficult.

It's an ethical question, but he, but, but he reflects at one point. And he just says, you know, we, we all came to think or he came to think that he's really there just killing Germans because they're German, you know, just because they had the misfire.

I can't remember. He phrases it really well.

And that's quite a, that's quite a thought.

No, that takes us into a much bigger thing, which we can't possibly touch upon now, but the, but the idea, you know, what, what is an armed force for in the first place, you know, because to me, sort of rather sentimentally, the idea of sort of Queen and country seem to mean something.

We're certainly made a hell of a lot more than right going to go off there and just bash those people around just because they're in a different part of the world.

To me, has never made any sense at all.

But to not have any armed forces.

And well, you know, anyway, not not for now, but, but it, but it just does.

You know, how many people really, when that, when you are getting operational briefings about this and the other, how many people are really thinking.

Okay, so we, we are going to be in, let's say Iran or Russia, aiming to kill Iranians or Russians simply because they are Iranian or Russian.

I mean, that's, that's quite a thought. Now, where people take that, I, I don't know, but I think that people that, that at least having those thoughts, having those discussions has got to be for the, for the good, because otherwise we, this has been sort of a thread through this conversation.

The balance absolutely does shift away from the military, holding any power over their own destiny.

And, and we look at the, the massive, massive corporate influence. And that is a, that is a terrific danger.

And I think what I'm pleased to be doing is this, you know, this, this series, which we are going to make a more regular commitment to.

I think it's really important that UK column does chart accurately this drip drip ball frog progression, because I think we see it and it, it is very important that other people are brought to see it as well.

Absolutely. Charles, we're probably at the top of the hour. I think so, we, we should probably finish for today, but let's end by reinforcing the point that we absolutely understand.

The quality of the people are out there in UK's military.

I think my final message would be it may be, I'm saying to those people out there in the armed forces, you may have to fight, it'll be fighting for this country rather than fighting the Russians.

Yeah, that's exactly it, but exactly what is defined by this country these days is, is a, is a big one and we'll get to that in another episode.

Yeah, brilliant. Thanks very much.

Thanks, son.

Hey, it's Bubba Wallace from 2311 Racing. You know what it feels like forever?

Sitting on a plane waiting for takeoff. Good thing I've got jumbo casino with daily boost in social casino games on tap.

This is a kind of fun that makes time fly. Why not turbocharger downtime? Play now at chumbacaceno.com. Let's jump up.

Sponsored by chumbacaceno, no purchase necessary, VGW GroupFord, where prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions apply.